|
I think we're entering into a grey area. If it is a cultural norm for followers of a particular religion to wear a particular garment, and not for non-believers to wear that same garment, then is attacking the wearers of that garment tantamount to attacking the followers of the religion? I don't know but it's potentially a sticky situation to wade into.
A quick look on wikipedia (yes, not a totally reliable source) shows that the Jewish kippah is the result of the requirement to cover one's head in the presence of God. It seems to me the requirements for wearing it are still subject to debate and argument amongst Jewish scholars and rabbis and also that the form of that covering has evolved over time, but the requirement is simply to cover one's head.
This is similar to Sikhism where turbans were chosen simply because they made the men look more regal/important, but it could have been a simple piece of cloth tied like a headscarf, which is what I wear on the very odd occasion I go to a Sikh temple for a wedding or funeral, as I'm not religious.
So, if BoJo had made a comment about turbans or kippahs (not sure what the plural is as I'm not familiar with Hebrew), would he have been in a similar situation? Criticising a form of religious dress that is cultural rather than proscribed specifically by the religion to be in that form and that form only. |
|